Thoughts on love, relationships, and breakups

I had an interesting chat with one of my friends last night, we were having a drink or two and the topic turned to relationships. I had commented that out of all the people I know of my age, I didn't know a single person who was in what I considered to be a real love/soulmates relationship. Everyone either had a dysfunctional relationship, or one that started out good but then lost some of the spark and drifted into more of a companionship thing. Bearing in mind my observations, and also things I've read on LS and elsewhere, I started to wonder why this was the case.

There's this ideal of "true love" where 2 people match really well, and have blissful happiness, rarely if ever argue, have a great sex life even into their old age etc. Some people dispute this and say it's an illusion, but I have seen a couple of people like this (although I am guessing about the sex part) and I've read research into this area that confirms that "soulmates" do exist, albeit in a minority. The puzzle for me is why the vast majority of people are in relationships that are not like this at all.

Consider the typical long-term relationship or marriage. It starts out well, two people "fall in love", then settle together - either marrying or moving in with each other. Now, in most cases one of the following happens:

1) Bad case - they get a bit less romantic as time goes by; the sex gets less interesting, less frequent, both partners start to notice other attractive ppl; arguments increase in frequency and intensity, sometimes one or both people have thoughts about ending it (but then resolve to stay together and "work on things"); the longer this goes on, the more resentment and dissatisfaction builds up. Usually, an affair or separation/divorce is the end. Pretty much all realtionship breakups seem to go this way (except the truly screwup toxic relationships that just explode in a mess of total incompatibility). Occasionally it becomes co-dependent and two people stick together long term despite making each other totally miserable.

2) Better case - the lust & passion slowly declines, and they argue from time to time, but they get on reasonably well as companions, and enjoy each other's company. They express intimacy more by lovey-dovey things - holding hands, romantic dinners, kissing etc - rather than shagging like rabbits 3 times a day. Now this is better than case 1), but still has its problems. It's just that most people get used to having problems and learn to live with it, they prefer that rather than splitting and having to start the search all over again. A bit like someone who accepts an ok but hardly dream job, they bury their dreams in return for an acceptable but hardly spectacular life. This "case 2" makes up the vast majority of long-lasting relationships that I have observed.

Now, what do both of these have in common? Firstly, the passion starts to decline after 18 months or so and eventually dwindles. Second, they have arguments.

Think about that for a minute. Isn't passion the reason you went for someone in the first place? It seems strange that most relationships are two people staying together despite not having passion.

Second point - why do people have arguments in relationships? I mean how often do you argue with your friends? People in a relationship will often have an argument that they would *never* have if they were just friends. I just don't see any justification for having more arguments in a relationship than you would with your same-sex or platonic friends. Yet most relationships have them far more often than that. I don't get stressed by my friends, because we don't argue and don't have drama. You could call this "harmony". Most relationships lack harmony.

So for the ideal of "true love", passion and harmony seem necessities. Yet the vast majority of relationships have neither, and even most lasting long-term relationships only have one.

And look at the way people have evolved coping strategies to handle this. For example, the idea of a guy hanging out with his male friends at the pub or sports bar, to get away from the wife. All the jokes about "her indoors" or "she who must be obeyed". Women having their socialising with their girlfriends etc. All this is because they lack harmony at home, they feel the need to get away from time to time.

Or to fulfil the need for passion, a lot of people have affairs - emotional or physical. You have the French/continental concept of "cinq a sept" - you'll have a mistress or man on the side, who you'll meet betwee 5 & 7 after work for some passionate lovemaking, but you keep it compartmentalised and all involved understand it will go no further. 2 people looking to fill a gap in their lives that they don't get from their main relationship. In Asia they have a similar phenomenon of the "minor wife". It's accepted as a "pragmatic/realist" way to handle the fact that most relationships don't sustain passion, long-term. In the Anglo-Saxon world, society frowns on this much more - but fails to come up with a feasible solution other than "get a divorce" and be single...a fate many people shy away from.

If you look at the problem relationships described on loveshack, almost all of them seem to have one of these 2 major problems. Either the passion has gone, and so you get all the fallout from that - people posting about affairs, crushes, bad or non-existent sex life etc; or there is no harmony, but rather conflict - these are the threads where people are posting about being abused (emotionally or physically), constant fighting, excessive contol/possessiveness/jealousy, lack of respect, inability to live together and so on. Almost every single thread seems to be based on problems arising from lack of passion or lack of harmony.

So, what's the solution? Some people don't think there is one. I've seen lots of people here saying you just learn to handle the problems, they are inevitable. What a sad view of life & love, that people *expect* to no longer lust after their supposed life partner, or that they resign themselves to constant fighting and emotional turmoil in order to get some passion in their life. Well, I just don't agree with this, and the evidence backs me up. There are couples who find passion and harmony and sustain it, they might be rare but these "soulmates" do exist.

The question then is, if you can get this, why the hell would anyone stay in a relationship that has no passion, or lost of conflict - or worse still, both! I think it's partly ignorance - people just don't understand that relationships don't have to be mundane, or full of drama. But a more important reason, the key thing that fools 95% of people, is this: at the early stage of a relationship, you get those feelings of passion/lust/love, that *disguise* the personality conflicts and/or lack of true sexual chemistry. Those feelings, caused by millions of years of evolution designed to make us want to reproduce frequently, are what mislead us. We see someone 80% compatible, but with 20% flaws that will prevent them being a truly suitable life-partner. Maybe it's a really great guy or gal, but you don't feel the true passion you had with an ex. Maybe it's someone who makes you swoon, but they have character flaws that will make your life hell if you stay with them a few years or more. But we overlook those flaws because 80% is good and our mind/body response in the first 6-12 months is strong enough to persuade us to overlook them.

Once the first flushes of infatuation wear off, the flaws become more apparent. But then we start making excuses - the other person apologises for character flaws, says sorry and tries harder, and we believe they will "change". They never do. Or, we notice a dropoff in passion, but because they're such a nice person, we accept that and feel a bit guilty for being "superficial". But the passion keeps dwindling no matter how "nice" they might be.

So that, IMO, is why the vast majority of people do not find true love or their soulmate. They get confused by initial infatuation and hormones, or bad judgement of character, and think that they have met "the one", when really it's someone not truly suitable. They then spend anything from 6 months to an entire lifetime staying with their "mistake", inventing various excuses, living in denial, too scared to change, or simply not even realising that they could have something much better.

What's the solution? To be aware that the first 6 months are not a reliable guide to a relationship. To have a keen eye out for potential flaws in someone you are going out with. And once you see problems lasting for more than a month or two - either dropoff in passion, or personal conflict - you have to be ruthless and decisive in ending the relationship. No hard feelings, but it's simply not meant to be. You must avoid the mistake that almost everyone makes, in hoping that things will get better, trying to make them change, or just staying out of inertia, fear of being single, or the other countless reasons people invent to justifying staying in an unhappy dead-end relationship.

It's just those two things you need to look out for. Drama/conflict, or lack of passion (either in yourself or your partner). Husband doesn't want sex as much and is upstairs jerking off to porn? He's lost passion for you, you aren't soulmates, get a divorce. Girlfriend had an emotional affair with a co-worker? She's lost passion for you, you aren't suited, ditch her. Love your wife but argue constantly? You aren't a match, you don't have a harmonious relationship together, end it now. Why put up with this awful situations when there are many people out there who would be ideal for you?

So, that's the conclusion I came to. Real love exists and it does last. You just have to avoid ending up in a relationship that is based on "dud love". And if you find yourself there, get out - no ifs, no buts, just run! But to do this you have to make a committment to yourself. You have to decide, once and for all, that the moment you realise you're in a dead-end relationship, you will leave. Don't be like all those people I know, or read about here on LS, who persevere in dead-end relationships, under the guise of loyalty, "trying to work things out", and other excuses. A real relationship does not require work, or making up, it happens naturally. Ask or observe anyone who really has found their soulmate, and that's what you see!

It's unrealistic to suppose that even in the ideal relationship between soul mates that there's never an argument or disagreement. After all, we're talking two adults here who bring into the relationship their own, independent views, their diverse upbringings and their life experiences which may also be very different. So, too, may be their individual goals and aspirations.

Relationships, especially marriage, are a matter of give-and-take, communication and compromise with the ultimate goal being what's best for both.

Yesterday I blew up at my wife because of a financial concern. That was a rare occurrence and we hardly ever argue or disagree. Our marriage is based upon mutual respect and admiratrion that preceeded it by five years that we knew one another first, during four of which we worked together. We have conversations, not confrontations the bulk of the time. There is literally nothing we can't communicate about. We did yesterday after I vented and cooled down and reached a very comfortable compromise. I also stopped to breathe long enough to discern what precipitated the problem. Such is the nature of the relationship.

Are we soul mates? We both believe we are. We've been in one anothers' lives for over 15 years, married for over 10 of them. Neither of us can even begin to imagine life without the other in it, nor do we wish to.

Yes, couples do "settle-in" to relationships but that in no way implies that they're settling out of fear, complacency, laziness, conflict-avoidance or for any other reason. It simply means they become comfortable and secure in the relationship and with one another. It's not at all a bad place to be. It does NOT mean that they have to stop trying or work any less on making the relationship as good as it can be. It simply means that there is an underlying bond they both recognize and acknowledge.

Your supposition that a "real relationship" doesn't need work is absolutely false. They all take work and those of us in good ones take joy in that work. Romancing one another daily is a conscious effort, half the fun and keeps the love alive and vibrant.

If you're ever fortunate enough to truly fall in love with the right person, and they love you back, then you'll know whereof I speak.

It's unrealistic to suppose that even in the ideal relationship between soul mates that there's never an argument or disagreement. After all, we're talking two adults here who bring into the relationship their own, independent views, their diverse upbringings and their life experiences which may also be very different. So, too, may be their individual goals and aspirations.

 

Relationships, especially marriage, are a matter of give-and-take, communication and compromise with the ultimate goal being what's best for both.

 

Yesterday I blew up at my wife because of a financial concern. That was a rare occurrence and we hardly ever argue or disagree. Our marriage is based upon mutual respect and admiratrion that preceeded it by five years that we knew one another first, during four of which we worked together. We have conversations, not confrontations the bulk of the time. There is literally nothing we can't communicate about. We did yesterday after I vented and cooled down and reached a very comfortable compromise. I also stopped to breathe long enough to discern what precipitated the problem. Such is the nature of the relationship.

Well, I think you misunderstood my post a bit in that case. I am not saying there'd never be arguments. I am saying there should/would be roughly the same number & intensity of arguments as you might have with your normal friends. And as you say "we hardly ever argue or disagree". So basically we have the same opinion on that aspect at least.

Regarding feeling passion and "settling in", I do think it's normal for people to get a bit more settled as they get older. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the common situation where a couple start out lusting after each other, and in 18-24 months they are bored, have a crap sex life, and are looking elsewhere. That's not "settling in", that's a disaster. Basically they had no strong sexual attraction except the initial novetly of a new sex partner. Once that wears off, they have little left. Or consider the wife who cuts sex drastically after marriage, or after kids. LS is littered with such threads.

Anyway, you seem to admit that you & your wife don't argue much, and have a decent sex life. So you don't fall into either of the two "relationship traps" that I was discussing. And, surprise surprise, you seem to be happily married! Isn't that just confirming the theory?

Very idealized. Passionate love rarely continues. You could search your whole life and never find your "soul mate" because they live 8,000 miles away and don't speak English.

Relationships are lots of work. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Very idealized. Passionate love rarely continues. You could search your whole life and never find your "soul mate" because they live 8,000 miles away and don't speak English.

Well, I intend to find out or have lots of sex trying

Someone's not thinking about passionate love, moreso little brain thinking...

Well, I think you misunderstood my post a bit in that case. I am not saying there'd never be arguments. I am saying there should/would be roughly the same number & intensity of arguments as you might have with your normal friends. And as you say "we hardly ever argue or disagree". So basically we have the same opinion on that aspect at least.

As for your earlier comment...

Isn't passion the reason you went for someone in the first place?

No. I "met" my SO online at a political forum (of all places) over 2 years ago. We developed a friendship that slowly changed into something else. I had not met him, or seen a picture of him, when my feelings for him became more than "just friends". I fell in love, and "went for him" because of what was on the inside, nothing at all to do with passion.

Hi,

I thought it was a well thought out post m_t.

Yes, I agree that there "are" soulmates out there, some have been lucky enough to have married each other, and I've known about some such couples.

The problem of course is to find that soulmate.

Here someone did the math, but not sure how accurate those results are:

-------------

Chances of Marrying Your Soulmate

If only 8% of long-term married couples have actually married their soulmates, what will be the chance that a newly wedded couple have? The average marriage length of our 9,957 long-term marriage sample is 15 years. Taking the current divorce rate for marriages of 15 years is 43%, for anyone who is getting married, the chance that they have married their soulmates is 3.4%. In other words, 1 out of 30 newly wedded couple would have found true love. The calculations are as follows: % of married people that are actual soulmates =percent of divorce x

percent of soulmate couples

=43 x .08

=.034

% of newlyweds that are actual soulmates =3.4%

=1 out of 30 newlyweds

Source http://www.solvedating.com/soulmatemchancesofmarrying.html

-------

Ariadne

Someone's not thinking about passionate love, moreso little brain thinking...

Well, that assumes hot sex and passionate love are mutually exclusive. Who says so?

I take your point that it is hard to find someone you really click with on both levels, and sustain that beyond the "honeymoon" phase. But why does that mean that people ought to labour on in stale or toxic relationships, once it has become obvious that this isn't the person with whom to spend the rest of their life?

Maybe it's just me, but if I have a choice between single, with personal freedom and the ability to date around, or in a relationship/marriage with either lots of fights or crap sex (or worse still, both), not to mention a load of responsibilities and chores, I am going to take the former every time. As a bonus, it means that if someone amazing does come along, I can go for it without any obstacles. Someone stuck in a dull marriage or a go-nowhere relationship will spend half their life missing out on these opportunities - or worse still, have an affair and wreck things all round for everyone.

What is it that makes you want to settle for a relationships where you fight a lot of find the attraction dies? I guess I don't understand what would motivate someone to stay in a relationship like that, to me it sounds like a really frustrating and dispiriting existence.

Ariadne - that number is depressingly low, but even if the truth is higher, it's still rare. Any thoughts on how to improve the chances?

Hi,

Well, I believe that by nature your soulmate will be attracted to things that you are attracted to as well.

In my case is very rare to find a soulmate since the forum is the only place I socialize. Other than that I'm a loner.

Yet, I found what I'd call a soulmate (same attitudes, same world views, same likes and dislikes, same personality, same everything, and mind-blowing chemistry and connection when we met) in a forum.

And it still didn't work-out. He was in some sort of limerence with someone else that was by all means was not his soulmate as far as I can tell and know about the subject. But that's how things are, and I'm still single.

I guess if you are of the social type and are into things that are done in a social environment your chances will increase.

Ariadne

No. I "met" my SO online at a political forum (of all places) over 2 years ago. We developed a friendship that slowly changed into something else. I had not met him' date=' or seen a picture of him, when my feelings for him became more than "just friends". I fell in love, and "went for him" because of what was on the inside, nothing at all to do with passion.[/quote']

 

That was my experience as well. My wife and I met at work (we're both legislative and political analysts) and our five year friendship was based on mutual respect and admiration. There was nothing "passionate" about it.

 

I had no romantic illusions or intentions the first time I asked her out. I was taking a 3½-4 hour drive to a beach town to go to a particular store for some special, one-of-a-kind Christmas gifts for my daughters. It was two years after divorcing their mother, I'd lived like a monk all that time and thought some company would be nice. She was easy to talk to and interesting so I asked her to join me for brunch at the beach following an early morning start.

 

Our date started at 7:00 a.m. and we fell in love mid-way through it. It just happened. After brunch and the shop we drove to Carmel by the Sea and took the 17 Mile Drive (gorgeous), then to Steinbecks Cannery Row in Montery, ending the day witha lovely dinner and wine before a roaring fire (it was November and cold) in a nice restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf. By the time I dropper her off at her home it was midnight. Our first date day trip had lasted 17 hours. Neither of us wanted it to end. We spent most of the next day together as well but each of us got home at a decent hour.

 

The rest is history. We were married two months later and are still going strong!

That was my experience as well. My wife and I met at work (we're both legislative and political analysts) and our five year friendship was based on mutual respect and admiration. There was nothing "passionate" about it.

 

I had no romantic illusions or intentions the first time I asked her out. I was taking a 3½-4 hour drive to a beach town to go to a particular store for some special, one-of-a-kind Christmas gifts for my daughters. It was two years after divorcing their mother, I'd lived like a monk all that time and thought some company would be nice. She was easy to talk to and interesting so I asked her to join me for brunch at the beach following an early morning start.

 

Our date started at 7:00 a.m. and we fell in love mid-way through it. It just happened. After brunch and the shop we drove to Carmel by the Sea and took the 17 Mile Drive (gorgeous), then to Steinbecks Cannery Row in Montery, ending the day witha lovely dinner and wine before a roaring fire (it was November and cold) in a nice restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf. By the time I dropper her off at her home it was midnight. Our first date day trip had lasted 17 hours. Neither of us wanted it to end. We spent most of the next day together as well but each of us got home at a decent hour.

 

The rest is history. We were married two months later and are still going strong!

Wow C, you give me hope for something worthwhile in the future.

A real relationship does not require work, or making up, it happens naturally. Ask or observe anyone who really has found their soulmate, and that's what you see!

I don't think these people will say their relationship requires no work...

A good and (wise) friend of mine once told me that she thinks "soulmate" is one of the most dangerous concepts in our society. I have to agree wholeheartedly.

She herself has been in a fantastic relationship for the past several years and they plan to get married soon. I know both of them well and they are *perfect* for each other.

I absolutely believe in true love, and in finding someone perfect for you, but I don't think we should call it "soulmates."

The term "soulmate" is problematic because it implies (at least to me) that:

a) there is only ONE person in this world who truly understands you, loves you unconditionally, and will be with you until the end. (What about best friends? Parents? Brothers/sisters?)

and/or

b) there is only ONE person in the world who shares all (or most of) your interests, sees eye to eye with you, truly "meshes" with you, etc.

"Soulmate" suggests that this person will just magically "get" you, no explanation or compromise needed, and that s/he will "get" you *in a way no one else has before.* I can already say that is impossible, because I'm fortunate enough to have people in my life that fulfill #A and #B.

Looking for one's "soulmate" gets people focused on (read: obsessed with) certain criteria, and they often give up on people because they don't seem to fit the "soulmate" mold.

I think "life partner" is a better term. And a better standard of measurement, rather than "Is s/he my soulmate?" would be these questions:

Can I imagine being with someone better? Could anyone make me happier than this person? (And after a few months or years of being together...Do I want to be with this person the rest of my life? )

If you can answer these questions quickly and without hesitation, you've found your life partner.

That was my experience as well. My wife and I met at work (we're both legislative and political analysts) and our five year friendship was based on mutual respect and admiration. There was nothing "passionate" about it.

 

I had no romantic illusions or intentions the first time I asked her out. I was taking a 3½-4 hour drive to a beach town to go to a particular store for some special, one-of-a-kind Christmas gifts for my daughters. It was two years after divorcing their mother, I'd lived like a monk all that time and thought some company would be nice. She was easy to talk to and interesting so I asked her to join me for brunch at the beach following an early morning start.

 

Our date started at 7:00 a.m. and we fell in love mid-way through it. It just happened. After brunch and the shop we drove to Carmel by the Sea and took the 17 Mile Drive (gorgeous), then to Steinbecks Cannery Row in Montery, ending the day witha lovely dinner and wine before a roaring fire (it was November and cold) in a nice restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf. By the time I dropper her off at her home it was midnight. Our first date day trip had lasted 17 hours. Neither of us wanted it to end. We spent most of the next day together as well but each of us got home at a decent hour.

 

The rest is history. We were married two months later and are still going strong!

Curmudgeon, I *love* your posts. You are so articulate and wise.

Curmudgeon, I *love* your posts. You are so articulate and wise.

Why, thank you. I'm not so sure about the wise part, however.

The term "soulmate" is problematic because it implies (at least to me) that:

 

a) there is only ONE person in this world who truly understands you, loves you unconditionally, and will be with you until the end. (What about best friends? Parents? Brothers/sisters?)

 

and/or

 

b) there is only ONE person in the world who shares all (or most of) your interests, sees eye to eye with you, truly "meshes" with you, etc.

I use the term when it comes to my wife because we just match, as if we were really made for one another. We each have our own strengths and weaknesses (was are human after all) but we enhance one another which capitalizes on the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses.

After divorce spelling the end of a long-term marriage (25 years) I came to some conclusions and requirements about what I wanted in any future, committed relationship if there was ever again to be one; something I sincerely doubted at the time.

In my wife I found my intellectual, educational, professional and spiritual equal. She was also close in age to me (only a two year difference), well employed and independent with her own retirement fund, had no children still at home and was also post-menopausal. In short, she was everything I wanted in a future partner and never thought I'd find -- some of it, of course -- all of it, doubtful.

Could there be another woman out there equally suited for me? Perhaps. However, she's the one I found and, in fact, she had been there for many years already. We both believe that it was more than mere happenstance that I moved hundreds of miles to where she was, we ended up working together, she was available, I became available and we fit so well.

If you'll pardon me, I'll continue to think of us as soul mates. There were many signs and portents over the years that pointed to our eventually coming together, beginning on the day we met.

The difference between the number of arguments with friends, and the number of arguments with a SO, is largely impacted by the fact....friends don't live with you. Living with someone allows for plenty of "opportunities" to get on one another's nerves.

Well that's not my experience, since I've never lived with an SO yet in the past had more arguments than with my friends (one or two of whom I've shared houses/flats with in the past). Look at all the threads on here where there are frequent arguments and yet they don't live together; or long-distance relationships.

I agree living together raises the chance of disagreements, but that factor alone doesn't explain the far higher number of "fights" most people seem to have in relationships compared to friendships.

I don't think these people will say their relationship requires no work...

Well, I'm open to being contradicted by people who are still 100% happy after being together for a long time, like 10 years+. So far I've only really met 2 couples who I'd say fit that description, and they both said they didn't feel like it was "work" to stay together. But yeah, I guess it's possible that others have a good relationship and sometimes it needs more effort.

A good and (wise) friend of mine once told me that she thinks "soulmate" is one of the most dangerous concepts in our society. I have to agree wholeheartedly.

 

...

 

I think "life partner" is a better term. And a better standard of measurement, rather than "Is s/he my soulmate?" would be these questions:

 

Can I imagine being with someone better? Could anyone make me happier than this person? (And after a few months or years of being together...Do I want to be with this person the rest of my life? )

 

If you can answer these questions quickly and without hesitation, you've found your life partner.

Your term "life partner" is basically what I mean by the term "soulmate", and I agree with your 3 questions.

Obviously there can't be only 1 compatible person in the entire world, out of 3 billion+ possibilities!

Can I ask for the people who didn't have passion as the main reason they got together at first, did you find it developed into that later, and if so how long did it take?

Can I ask for the people who didn't have passion as the main reason they got together at first, did you find it developed into that later, and if so how long did it take?

A few months.

Can I ask for the people who didn't have passion as the main reason they got together at first, did you find it developed into that later, and if so how long did it take?

Halfway through one date after five years of friendship.

Well that's not my experience, since I've never lived with an SO yet in the past had more arguments than with my friends (one or two of whom I've shared houses/flats with in the past). Look at all the threads on here where there are frequent arguments and yet they don't live together; or long-distance relationships.

 

I agree living together raises the chance of disagreements, but that factor alone doesn't explain the far higher number of "fights" most people seem to have in relationships compared to friendships.

I think one reason that there are more arguments in relationships than in friendships is that it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. What I mean is, people just attach far more importance to relationships - they worry about finding "The One," "The Soulmate" - and I think that means that they become far more harsh on their partner than they ever would on their friends. We expect more from our partners because we want them to be perfect for us, because we're imagining a future that might be intricately entwined with another person. We are not nearly so demanding of our friends, because a) we have more than one friend - there is not that "soulmate" slot to fill; and b) as much as we may love our friends, we don't feel as worried about what might happen if we one day wanted to end a friendship - we can allow that relationship to ebb and flow, and not feel nearly as personally impacted about how that friendship reflects on us, what it means if our friend backs away temporarily, and so forth.

In other words, friendship is not as fraught, because we don't identify ourselves by it in the same way that we do our relationships. And therefore, the tension is less, the need to "hammer out" disagreements and be in harmony is far less, and the willingness to just let someone be is greater. That is why, I think, people fight more in relationships.

It's not because they're more incompatible than they are with their friends. It's because they feel a far greater need to address issues that otherwise might not matter, simply because they're in a romantic relationship, rather than a friendship. So naturally, if you attach all this importance to finding the "right" person, you're going to drive each other a bit crazy with expectations and needs.

That is not to say that the "right" person isn't out there. I believe in love. But I also believe that much of the reason people fight is because they can't just let another person be - there's a difference between loving someone, feeling happy and satisfied that they are who they are and you are who you are and your needs are being met, and you feel fulfilled in your life - and "needing" someone to be perfect for all time.

Second point - why do people have arguments in relationships? I mean how often do you argue with your friends? People in a relationship will often have an argument that they would *never* have if they were just friends. I just don't see any justification for having more arguments in a relationship than you would with your same-sex or platonic friends. Yet most relationships have them far more often than that. I don't get stressed by my friends, because we don't argue and don't have drama. You could call this "harmony". Most relationships lack harmony.

I haven't finished reading the rest of your post yet, but I wanted to comment on this. You make a good point here, and this is something I have always thought about. My bf and I of 2 years really never fight...we've disagreed on some very minor things, but we honestly get along very well. Now, we might still be at the honeymoon stage at 2 years, who knows. But when we do disagree on something, I've always tried to think about this before I blow things out of proportion: "Would I really be mad about this if this was a friend? How would I talk things out with a friend if this happened?" It really helps me communicate better with my bf. I do not yell at him or nag him, and he does the same for me. The thing is, there's so much emotion invested in relationships, that partners tend to blow up at each other over very minor things. I think a lot of relationships lack communication skills, which is why resentment tends to build up over time.